# Ajay Pratap Singh & Ors v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 54851 of 2017
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-pratap-singh-ors-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-allahabad-ors-51206
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Revenue Law - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 229-B - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 49-
Declaration suit filed before Revenue
Court after consolidation proceedingswhether the suit is barred by Section 49 of
the 1953 Act- Nature and scope -
Complete bar on institution of suit or
proceedings
in
respect
of
rights
or
interests adjudicated or ought to have
been raised during consolidation -Courts
correctly dismissed claim - No error
found-mixed question of fact and lawpetition dismissed. (Paras 11 to 14)
HELD:
I have considered the above submission and
perused the record. In order to consider the
rival submissions, it would be relevant to
consider a judgment passed by Supreme Court
in Satyanath & anr. Vs Sarojamani, 2022 (7) SCC
644, wherein it has been held that "preliminary
issues can be those where no evidence required
and on basis of reading of plaint or applicable
law, if jurisdiction of the Court or bar to suit is
made out, the Court may decide the such issues
with sole objective of expeditious decision,
however, in case where issues both of law and
of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of
opinion that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try
those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues
of fact until after the issues of law have been
determined". (para 11)

In the present case, whether the suit was
barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act was a mixed question of law and
fact, since in order to consider whether the
interest of petitioner (admittedly, a minor at that
time) was taken note by her mother during
proceedings under Consolidation Act or not and
for that the said material i.e. fact has to be
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
looked into, however, in present case, learned
Trial Court has entered into factual aspect of
case also at the stage of consideration of
preliminary issue on law and held that the suit
was barred. (Para 12)

The aforesaid approach is absolutely contrary to
Satya Nath (supra). The Appellate Court also
committed the same error and proceeded to
consider facts of case as well as law and
returned finding that plaintiff was neither
recorded in revenue record as a minor nor his
guardian was on record, therefore, the order
passed by Appellate Court was also in teeth of
Satya Nath (supra). The error committed of Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court was cured by
Board of Revenue that all the issues has to be
decided and findings has to be returned to all
the issues including the issue whether the suit
was barred or not. To decide a mixed
preliminary issue (on fact and on law) would be
an illegality. (Para 13)

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of
considered opinion that in present set of facts
an issue whether the suit was barred by Section
49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was a
mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, it
ought to have been decided along with other
issues and not as a preliminary issue only. (Para
14)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Ajay Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
277
accordance with law, however, the
Board of Revenue has failed to consider it.

29. In the aforesaid circumstances the
Court can remand the matter to the Board of
Revenue to decide the Second Appeal afresh,
after framing question of law, however, the
Court takes note that this writ is pending since
1981 i.e. for about more than four decades,
therefore, to remand the matter at this stage
would not be in the interest of justice.

30. In the aforesaid circumstances the
Court is of considered opinion that it is a fit
case where an interference could be caused in
the concurrent findings of three Revenue
Courts, since they are perverse and finding
returned that the Will was proved was contrary
to establish and settled law to prove a Will.

31. The evidence produced by the
plaintiff/respondent no. 4 was not sufficient to
prove the Will, therefore, the findings returned
by the Trial Court/ Appellate Court as well as
Board of Revenue are perverse and contrary to
law and therefore an interference is caused and
accordingly all the impugned judgements are
set aside, the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent
no. 4 is dismissed and its legal consequence
Will follow.

32. With aforesaid observations, this
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ B No. 54851 of 2017

Ajay Pratap Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anand Kapoor Pandey, Lalji Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Durga Charan
Singh Yadav, Manoj Kumar Yadav, Smt.
Rekhta Singh

Civil Law - Revenue Law - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 229-B - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 49-
Declaration suit filed before Revenue
Court after consolidation proceedingswhether the suit is barred by Section 49 of
the 1953 Act- Nature and scope -
Complete bar on institution of suit or
proceedings
in
respect
of
rights
or
interests adjudicated or ought to have
been raised during consolidation -Courts
correctly dismissed claim - No error
found-mixed question of fact and lawpetition dismissed. (Paras 11 to 14)
HELD:
I have considered the above submission and
perused the record. In order to consider the
rival submissions, it would be relevant to
consider a judgment passed by Supreme Court
in Satyanath & anr. Vs Sarojamani, 2022 (7) SCC
644, wherein it has been held that "preliminary
issues can be those where no evidence required
and on basis of reading of plaint or applicable
law, if jurisdiction of the Court or bar to suit is
made out, the Court may decide the such issues
with sole objective of expeditious decision,
however, in case where issues both of law and
of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of
opinion that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try
those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues
of fact until after the issues of law have been
determined". (para 11)

In the present case, whether the suit was
barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act was a mixed question of law and
fact, since in order to consider whether the
interest of petitioner (admittedly, a minor at that
time) was taken note by her mother during
proceedings under Consolidation Act or not and
for that the said material i.e. fact has to be
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
looked into, however, in present case, learned
Trial Court has entered into factual aspect of
case also at the stage of consideration of
preliminary issue on law and held that the suit
was barred. (Para 12)

The aforesaid approach is absolutely contrary to
Satya Nath (supra). The Appellate Court also
committed the same error and proceeded to
consider facts of case as well as law and
returned finding that plaintiff was neither
recorded in revenue record as a minor nor his
guardian was on record, therefore, the order
passed by Appellate Court was also in teeth of
Satya Nath (supra). The error committed of Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court was cured by
Board of Revenue that all the issues has to be
decided and findings has to be returned to all
the issues including the issue whether the suit
was barred or not. To decide a mixed
preliminary issue (on fact and on law) would be
an illegality. (Para 13)

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of
considered opinion that in present set of facts
an issue whether the suit was barred by Section
49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was a
mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, it
ought to have been decided along with other
issues and not as a preliminary issue only. (Para
14)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2010 SCC (2) 114

2. Ashwinkumar K. Patel, Upendra J. Patel &
ors., (1993) 3 SCC 161

3. Sriram & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad Camp, Fatehpur & ors.,
2009 Supreme (All) 2646

4. Satyanath & anr. Vs Sarojamani, 2022 (7)
SCC 644

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lalji Chaudhary, learned
counsel for petitioners, Ms.Rekha Singh,
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and
Sri Durga Charan Singh Yadav, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.7 and 8.

2. Petitioners have set up a case that
contesting respondent Jeet Narayan Singh has
filed a suit under Section 229 of U.P. Z.A. and
L.R. Act on 01.01.1976 for declaration of his
title over the disputed land. The suit was
contested by mother of petitioner and has filed
her written statement. The other written
statement was filed by Smt.Mahdei and Smt.
Amar Dei and according to petitioners, the said
documents are not available in the records.

3. It appears that in aforesaid suit 9
issues were framed (details of same are not on
record) and it further appears that issue No.5
was whether the suit was barred by Section 49
of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said
issue was considered as a preliminary issue and
learned Trial Court by an order dated
29.09.1981, decided the said issue and held that
suit was barred by Section 49 of the said Act.
Relevant part of the order is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"प्रदतवािी के दवद्वान अदिविा के तका से मै
सहमत ह ूँ। पत्रावली के अध्ययन से तथा उस पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्यों से यह
स्पष्ट हो जाता है दक जीतनरायन वािी िौरान चकबन्िी मुकिमा में हादजर
आया तथा उसकी माूँ जो उसकी नेचुरल गादजायन थी वह आ०दन० के
बाबत चकबन्िी में लड़ी थी और इस तरह चकबन्िी में कायावाही हो जाने
के कारण प्रस्तुत िावा वािी िारा 49 चकबन्िी ऐक्ट से बादित है। इस
तरह इस वाि दबन्िु के दनणाय के बाि अब दकसी भी अन्य वाि दबन्िु के
दनणाय की आवश्यकता मै नहीं समझता ह ूँ अतः िावा वािी िारा 49
चकबन्िी ऐक्ट से बादित होने के कारण खाररज दकया जाता है। "

4. The said order was challenged at the
behest of contesting respondent i.e. plaintiff,
wherein following specific grounds were taken
:-

"Grounds of Appeal
 1. Because the plff. appellant was the
Bhumidhar of the land in suit was in possession
as such. Consequential, he was entitled to the
declaration claimed.
12 All. Ajay Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
279
 2. Because the issue of Sec. 49
U.P.C.H Act since a mixed question of law and
fact, it could not be treated to be the
preliminary point. The assumption of the
learned lower court to the contrary is
manifestly wrong.
 3. Because since the appellant was a
minor on the relevant dates and the relevant
litigation during the consolidation operation
was concluded without impleading him as a
party and without appointment of a guardian
therefore, sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act can have no
hearing in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The learned lower court has acted
illegally in as much as it has held the suit to be
barred by Sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act.
 4. Because the learned lower court
has
misappreciated
the
order
of
the
consolidation authorities and has not drawn
correct inferences therefrom.
 5. Because the procedure adopted by
the learned lower court has been grossly
irregular and it has acted illegally in not
framing groper issue in the case and in
improperly shutting out the appellantâ€TMs
evidence and in not affording him reasonable
opportunity to produce the same. All this has
seriously prejudiced the appellantâ€TMs case.
 6. Because the order of the learned
lower court being otherwise bad in law and
unwarranted by the evidence on the record is
liable to be set aside.―

 5. The Commissioner, Varanasi
decided the said appeal by an order dated
27.05.1983 and dismissed the same. The
relevant
part
thereof
is
mentioned
hereinafter :-

"मैने उिय पक्ष के योग्य अभििािको
को सुना और पत्रावली का अवलोकन ककया।

पक्षों के बीच उठे वववाद को ननखणगत
करने के भलये ननम्न वांशवृक्ष के भलखे जाने से
सहूभलयत होगी।

उपरोक्त वांशवृक्ष में वादी की ओर से
केवल इस बात पर वववाद उठाया गया कक
बहादुर और श्रीमती बसन्ती की 3 लड़ककयाां
(श्रीमती उमरदेई, मरजादी और देवरत्ती) नहीां है।
प्रनतवादनी श्रीमती शारदा देवी र्ी 1 की ओर से
कहा गया कक यह तीनों िी श्रीमती बसन्ती की
ही लड़ककयाां है। इस वववाद को यहाां ननखणगत
नहीां ककया जाना है क्योंकक चकबन्दी प्रकिया में
यह वववाद जीतनरायण आटद की आपवत्त
दाखखल करने के बाद ननखणगत हो चुकी है। यह
ननणगय टदया गया कक श्रीमती उमरदेई आटद
तीनो लड़ककयाां बहादुर की ही है और उनके 5
लड़ककयाां थी।

इसमें वववाद नहीां कक वववाटदत
आराजी से सम्बजन्ित चकबन्दी प्रकिया में वादी
जीतनरायण भसांह और उसके 3 िाई सत्य
नरायण, रामरक्षा और जगत नरायण ने आपवत्त
दाखखल ककया था। चकबन्दी प्रकिया में यह
ननणगय टदया गया कक श्रीमती बसन्ती की 5
लड़ककयाां थी। अपीलाथी के अभिवक्ता की ओर
से यह तकग रखा गया कक बहादुर से केवल दो
लड़ककयाां श्रीमती नौजादी और श्रीमदी महदेई का
होना प्रमाखणत है। अभिवक्ता ने मेरा ब्यान उन
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य की ओर आकृष्ि ककया
जजसमें दो लड़ककयाां होना साबबत होता है। यह
साक्ष्य है वसीयतनामा टदनाांक 10.12.49
जजसमें बहादुर ने दो लड़ककयाां होना माना है।
कुिुम्ब रजजस्िर और खतौनी 1363-65 फ० में
दो लड़ककयाां ही वरासतन दजग हुई। अभिवक्ता
ने कहा कक इन दो लड़ककयो ने अपने को तनहा
कहकर बैनामा िी ककया था। मै इस तकग से
सहमत नही हूां। इसका कारण यह है कक
चकबन्दी प्रकिया में यह वववाद उठाया गया
और यह ननणगय हो चुका है कक मृतक श्रीमती
वसन्ती के 5 लड़ककयाां थी। इसभलये दुबारा इस
वववाद को नहीां उठाया जा सकता है। अभिवक्ता
ने यह तकग रखा कक चकबन्दी प्रकिया में वादी
जीतनरायण नाबाभलग था और कोई जजम्मेदार
व्यजक्त उसका सांरक्षक ननयुक्त नहीां हुआ।
अभिवक्ता ने चकबन्दी अधिकारी का 19.9.68
का केस रामरक्ष बनाम श्रीमती नौजादी के
ननणगय की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ि ककया। इसमे है
कक रामरक्षा र्ी5 ने चकबन्दी मे अपनी
उजूरदारी उठा भलया था। मगर न्यायालय ने
जीतनरायण की ओर से उजूरदारी उठाना नहीां
माना क्योंकक वह नावाभलग था। यह यह तकग
रखा गया कक ननयम 14 चकबन्दी ननयमावली
के अन्तगगत उसका सांरक्षक ननयुक्त नही ककया
गया। इसभलये 5 लड़ककयो की उपपनत भलखा
जाना अनुधचत वव अवैिाननक था। उन्होने मेरा
ध्यान 1969 आर० र्ी० 182 की ओर आकृष्ि
ककया। इसमें कहा गया कक िारा 49 चकबन्दी
अधिननयम से दावा बाधित होने का प्रश्न उसी
पररजस्थनत मे माना जायेगा जब कक चकबन्दी
अधिननयम व ननयमावली का ववधिवत पालन
ककया गया पाया जाय। इस दृष्िान्त नावाभलग
के नाम खाता कायम था। उसका कोई ववधिवत
सांरक्षक ननयुक्त नही ककया गया। ऐसी दशा में
यह भसद्िान्त प्रनतपाटदत ककया गया कक
सांरक्षक ननयुक्त न ककये जाने के कारण िारा
49 चकबन्दी अधिननयम लागू नहीां होगा। मै
इस तकग से सहमत नही हूाँ। इस केस मे
चकबन्दी प्रकिया मे जीतनरायण नाबाभलग था
परन्तु उसके नाम खाता कायम नही था। उसका
नाम चकबन्दी प्रकिया के पूवग या आिार विग
की खतौनी में अांककत नही था। चकबन्दी
प्रकिया मे जातनरायण वादी ने और उसके 3
बड़े िाई (प्रनतवादीगण 4, 5 व 6) ने इक्जा
आपवत्त दाखखल ककया था। इसके वाद बड़े िाई
रामरक्षा ने अपनी और जीतनरायण की ओर से
आपवत्त उठा भलया। यह आपवत्त उठाया जाना
स्वयां प्रनतवादी रामरक्षा के टहत के ववरूद्ि िी
थी। कोई कारण नही था कक रामरक्षा अपनी
और अपने िाइयों के टहत के ववरूद्ि अपनी
आपवत्त वापस लेता। इस पर िी अदालत ने
एहनतयात बरता और जीतनरायण के नाबाभलग
होने के कारण उसके ववरूद्ि उठाई गई आपवत्त
का प्राथगना पत्र खाररज कर टदया। इस पररप्रेक्ष्य
मे यह बात स्पष्ि होती है कक न ही चकबन्दी
प्रकिया के पूवग या आिार विग की खतौनी मे
नाबाभलग जीतनरायण का नाम अांककत था और
न ही यह कहना सही होगा कक उसका सांरक्षक
कचबन्दी प्रकिया मे उसका िाई रामरक्षा नही
था।

ववपक्ष की ओर से मेरा ध्यान 1975
आर० र्ी० 274 की ओर आकृष्ि ककया गया
जजसमे माननीय हाई कोिग ने यह भसद्िान्त
प्रनतपाटदत ककया है कक ननयम 14 जा० च०
ननयमावली का उन्हीां केस मे लागू होता है जो
ककसी खातेदार का नाम राजस्व अभिलेखों मे
अांककत हो। यहाां इस केस मे लागू नहीां होता है।
12 All. Ajay Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
281
जब कोई व्यजक्त अपना नाम अांककत कराने का
दावेदार ककसी खाते पर हो। इस केस मे
चकबन्दी प्रकिया के पूवग नौजादी आटद का नाम
वववाटदत
आराजी
पर
अांककत
था
और
जीतनरायण आटद की ओर से आपवत्त दाखखल
की गई थी। इसभलये केस का नाम रामक्षा
बनाम नौजादी है। मै माननीय हाई कोिग के केस
को मानने के भलये बाध्य हूाँ। इसी सन्दिग में
1970 आर० र्ी० 508 िी महत्वपूणग है। इस
केस मे यह बात कही गई है कक अगर
चकबन्दी प्रकिया मे आपवत्त दाखखल करने वाला
नाबाभलग है तो यह बात ननरथगक है क्योंकक वह
अपने सांरक्षक द्वारा आपवत्त दाखखल कर सकता
था। इस केस मे िी यही पररजस्थनत है।
जीतनरायण अपने माता श्रीमती गुजराती द्वारा
आपवत्त दाखखल कर सकती थी। उसने अपर ऐसा
नहीां ककया तो अब उसकी बस छूि चुकी है और
अब वह दुबारा चारजोई ककसी माल के अदालत
मे नहीां कर सकता है। उपरोक्त सिी
पररजस्थनतयाां और तकों पर ववचार करने के
पश्चात् मै इस ननष्किग पर पहुाँचा हूाँ कक वादी
का दावा िारा 49 जा० च० अधिननयम से
बाधित है। अिीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा की गई
वववेचना से सहमत हूाँ।"

6. The aforesaid referred two orders
were thereafter challenged by way of filing
a Second Appeal before the Board of
Revenue. In the Second Appeal following
three substantial questions of law were
framed:-

"1- िारा- 229-बी उ०प्र०जमी०वव० एवां िूभम
व्यवस्था अधिननयम का वाद योजजत करने मे
समय सीमा ननिागररत न होने के बावजूद िी
क्या
ननम्न
न्यायालयों
द्वारा
वाद
को
कालबाधित मानकर त्रुटि की गई है?

2- क्या चकबांदी प्रकिया के अांतगगत पक्षकार के
नाबाभलग रहते वाद को िारा 49 चकबांदी
अधिननयम से बाधित माना जा सकता है अथवा
नही?
3- क्या स्वत्व के वाद में परीक्षण न्यायालय
द्वारा वाद बबांदु ननभमगत कर उनका बबन्दुवार
ननस्तारण ककया जाना आवश्यक है ?"

7. The Board of Revenue considered
the above referred questions of law and set
aside
the
order
dated
27.05.1983
and
25.09.1981 and remitted the matter back to
Trial Court to decide the suit after framing
issues and returned finding on all the issues.
The
relevant
part
thereof
is
mentioned
hereinafter:-

 "मैंने द्ववतीय अपील के गुण-दोि पर
उियपक्ष के ववद्वान अधिवक्ताओां को ववस्तार
में सुना तथा पत्रावली का सम्यक् अवलोकन
ककया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ि
होता है कक प्रश्नगत सम्पवत्त वादी जीत
नारायण व प्रनतपक्षीगण सांख्या 3,4 व 5 के
वपता द्वारा अजजगत की गई थी और चकबांदी के
समय वादी/द्ववतीय अपीलकताग नाबाभलग था,
पैतृक सम्पवत्त के सांबांि में सगे िाईयों के मध्य
चले वाद में नाबाभलग के ववरुद्ि ववधितः वाद
िारा 49 चकबांदी अधिननयम से बाधित नहीां
होगा। पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई िी साक्ष्य उपलब्ि
नहीां पाया गया कक नाबाभलग के सांरक्षक के रूप
में ककसी को न्यायालय द्वारा ननयुक्त ककया
गया हो।

अतः वाद को िारा 49 चकबांदी अधिननयम से
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बाधित नहीां माना जा सकता। तद्नुसार सारिूत
ववधिक प्रश्न सांख्या 2 का ननस्तारण ककया
जाता है। जहाां तक सारिूत ववधिक प्रश्न सांख्या
। का प्रश्न है इस सांबांि में स्वतः ववटदत है कक
िारा
229-बी०
उ०प्र०जमीां०वव०
एवां
िूभम
व्यवस्था अधिननयम का बाद योजजत करने में
कालसीमा ननिागररत नहीां है और जब वाद िारा
49 से बाधित नहीां है तो यह स्वतः स्पष्ि हो
जाता है कक वाद को कालबाधित मानकर उिय
अवर न्यायालयों द्वारा त्रुटि की गई है।
तद्नुसार सारिूत ववधिक प्रश्न सांख्या 2
ननस्ताररत ककया जाता है। इसी प्रकार सारिूत
ववधिक प्रश्न सांख्या 3 के सांबांि में मैं इस
ननष्किग पर पहुांचता हूां कक परीक्षण न्यायालय
द्वारा पाररत प्रश्नगत आदेश में यह उल्लेख
ककया गया है कक वाद में कुल 9 वाद बबांदु
ननभमगत ककये गये ककांतु परीक्षण न्यायालय
द्वारा मात्र एक ही वाद बबांदु को ननस्ताररत
करते हुए आदेश पाररत कर टदया जो सपष्ित्तया
अववधिक है न्यायालय का यह दानयत्व था कक
जब कुल 9 वाद बबांदु ननभमगत ककये गये तो
उनको सिी का ननस्तारण ककया जाना चाटहये
था अतः परीक्षण न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत
प्रश्नगत आदेश प्राांग न्याय से बाधित होगा।
तद्नुसार सारिूत ववधिक प्रश्न सांख्या 3 िी
ननस्ताररत ककया जाता है।

परीक्षण न्यायालय द्वारा अपने आदेश में
उजल्लखखत ककया है कक वाद में कुल 9 वाद बबांदु
क्या ववरधचत ककये गये। इसी प्रकार से परीक्षण
न्यायालय की पत्रावली पर प्रश्नगत रकबे से
सांबांधित चकबांदी न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत ककसी
िी आदेश की प्रनतभलवप उपलब्ि नहीां पाई गई
जजससे यह स्पष्ि नहीां हो पा रहा है कक
चकबांदी न्यायालय से कब और क्या आदेश
पाररत हुये। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में
द्ववतीय अपील में बल प्रतीत होता है और यह
स्वीकार ककये जाने योग्य है और प्रकरण
परीक्षण न्यायालय को प्रत्यावनतगत ककया जाना
आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है।

उपरोक्त तथ्य, पररजस्थनतयों एवां वववेचना के
आलोक में द्ववतीय अपील स्वीकार की जाती है
और उिय अिीनस्थ न्यायालयों द्वारा पाररत
प्रश्नगत आदेश िमशः टदनाांक 27-5-1983
तथा 25-9-1981 ननरस्त करते हुए वाद
परीक्षण न्यायालय को इस ननदेश के साथ
प्रत्यावनतगत ककया जाता है कक ऊपर की गई
वववेचना के आलोक में वाद बबांदु ननभमगत करते
हुए और उनका ननस्तारण उियपक्ष को साक्ष्य
व सुनवाई का अवसर प्रदान करते हुए गुण-दोि
के आिार पर सुननजश्चत करें। अवर न्यायालयों
के मूल अभिलेख वापस ककये जाय। बाद
आवश्यक कायगवाही यह पत्रावली दाखखल दफ्तर
की जाय।"

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that there are material on record that
mother of plaintiff/contesting respondent has
contested
the
objections
during
the
consolidation proceeding and his interest was
also protected. A primary issue was decided
correctly and suit was barred by Section 49 of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned
counsel also submits that relevant documents
are missing from the record and matter is if
remitted back, it may not be decided in many
years.

9. Learned counsel also submits that
Board of Revenue has erroneously interfered
with the concurrent findings of two Courts as
well as a wrong finding was returned that
12 All. Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
details of 9 issues framed were not on
record. Learned counsel for petitioner has
placed reliance on Dalip ;Singh Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 SCC (2) 114, Ashwinkumar K.
Patel, Upendra J. Patel and others, (1993) 3
SCC 161 and Sriram and others Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Allahabad Camp,
Fatehpur and others, 2009 0 Supreme (All)
2646.

10.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of contesting respondent
submitted that primary issue whether the suit
was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act was not only a question of fact
but it was a mixed question of law and fact,
therefore, it ought to have been decided after
returning findings on all 9 issues framed.

11. I have considered the above
submission and perused the record. In order to
consider the rival submissions, it would be
relevant to consider a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Satyanath and Another Vs.
Sarojamani, 2022 (7) SCC 644, wherein it has
been held that "preliminary issues can be those
where no evidence required and on basis of
reading of plaint or applicable law, if
jurisdiction of the Court or bar to suit is made
out, the Court may decide the such issues with
sole objective of expeditious decision, however,
in case where issues both of law and of fact
arise in the same suit, and the Court is of
opinion that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try
those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues
of fact until after the issues of law have been
determined".

12. In the present case, whether the suit
was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act was a mixed question of law
and fact, since in order to consider whether the
interest of petitioner (admittedly, a minor at that
time) was taken note by her mother during
proceedings under Consolidation Act or not and
for that the said material i.e. fact has to be
looked into, however, in present case, learned
Trial Court has entered into factual aspect of
case also at the stage of consideration of
preliminary issue on law and held that the suit
was barred.

13.
The
aforesaid
approach
is
absolutely contrary to Satya Nath (supra). The
Appellate Court also committed the same error
and proceeded to consider facts of case as well
as law and returned finding that plaintiff was
neither recorded in revenue record as a minor
nor his guardian was on record, therefore, the
order passed by Appellate Court was also in
teeth of Satya Nath (supra). The error
committed of Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court was cured by Board of Revenue that all
the issues has to be decided and findings has to
be returned to all the issues including the issue
whether the suit was barred or not. To decide a
mixed preliminary issue (on fact and on law)
would be an illegality.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
am of considered opinion that in present set of
facts an issue whether the suit was barred by
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act was a mixed question of law and fact and,
therefore, it ought to have been decided along
with other issues and not as a preliminary issue
only.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
am of considered opinion that there is no reason
to
interfere
with
impugned
order
and
accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 283
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 10552 of 2024

Satyanarayan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents